What does the east think about the Us and it allies participation in iraq

Excellent discussion guys.

Like golly normally I would PM Us Citizen..but..

I was in the 22 meu stationed at Camp Lejeune, nc. and yes i am out of the military due to reasons after my tour of iraq. y u curios?????????

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info!..I asked because I was in the USN for 20 years..that's why. I'm always curious about former military members service. No matter where they served. Later you maybe offered a VIP membership.

Popeye you came up with a timetable for withdrawl. I remember an interview with an old german journalist who spent many years in the mid and far east, expressing conserns over the impacts a full civil war in Iraq after the coallition leavs. There might be space for several elements trying to use this lawless arena to enforce their own interests. Wouldn't that perhaps negate the achievement of ending the former regime ?

Click to expand...

Maybe all that has been done after the coalition forces leave will be lost. So be it. I would hate to see that happen. The people in that region have been fighting each other for about 6000 years. They will not stop doing so anytime soon.

bd popeye said:

Maybe all that has been done after the coalition forces leave will be lost. So be it. I would hate to see that happen. The people in that region have been fighting each other for about 6000 years. They will not stop doing so anytime soon.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's that the people living in any particular region are predisposed to violence... I tend to believe that it's a simple lawless situation, and when that happens those that are willing to use brute force to take advantage of the situation will prevail. The anarchy that arose from our toppling of the Iraqi government (as well as the dispanding of their army) was arguably not unexpected.

(In case anyone's wondering, those aren't all my views regarding this subject, but since they have more to do with the morality of the situation as opposed to military aspects... I'll keep them to myself. Suffice to say they are probably defined as extreme by most in the USA.)

As i was saying ,well u might have heard a famous proverb TO ERR IS HUMAN.
anyway as long as u understand thers no need to poke ur nose.regarding ur details as it was not a war for oil .i am not at all convinced with ur justifications.i mean u r blaming ur president all the way.if it was not his idea and it was neocons idea then then he is the president not then if they lacked sense then he should a ounce of sense in him .he was the one who ordered the war .u better watch this movie BEHIND ENEMY LINES 2.it clearly shows ur president capabilities.:roll:

Asad, You MUST use your bets English when posting in this forum no "u" "r" etc

bd popeye super moderator

Asad Shah said:

As i was saying ,well u might have heard a famous proverb TO ERR IS HUMAN.
anyway as long as u understand thers no need to poke ur nose.regarding ur details as it was not a war for oil .i am not at all convinced with ur justifications.i mean u r blaming ur president all the way.if it was not his idea and it was neocons idea then then he is the president not then if they lacked sense then he should a ounce of sense in him .he was the one who ordered the war .u better watch this movie BEHIND ENEMY LINES 2.it clearly shows ur president capabilities.:roll:

Click to expand...

Frankly, it's a little hard to understand what you say sometimes...

But I suppose related to what (I think) you said, some have made the argument that it was the faulty intelligence and what not that "forced" the US to invade Iraq.

Many are contented to give the executive a free reign in policy because they believe that the government has secret information that will give it special and all-important insight on policy decisions. These decisions are not fact but judgment, and I do not believe policy-makers are necessarily more capable of making good decisions than the average intelligent citizen.

It's comforting for sure to know that decisions regarding war are made on a basis of unrefutable facts and logic, as well as "secret information" (that is accurate) - but if you take a look at history (especially recent) you will find that reality does not support this view.

Intelligence is nearly completely irrelevant to major policy decisions. (This may seem extreme, I know. Bear with me) "Secret information" is nearly always wrong, especially those that "can't be revealed to the public, because you'd just screw it up!" (A Republican candidate said this recently about the President having a plan, but not revealing it)

When arguing with neocons however, if you argue about intelligence youare playing by THEIR rules and you will have already lost. Proponents of war will always win in this, because if they want intelligence to show that Country A is a "grave" and "growing" threat they will find it (or fabricate it). So if you're fixated on whether or not the intelligence shows or fails to show evidence, the debate is over, and war will inevitably begin.

The American administration knows that - but opponents apparently haven't, even after all this time.